TA2-12575

TA2-12575

Because the claimant's risk stems from a generalized threat of terrorism shared by the population at large and not from persecution for a Convention ground, and because the United States retains effective control and protective measures so that removal would not subject the claimant individually to a risk to life or torture, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA; September 11, 2001 does not constitute a change in circumstances warranting protection here.

Citation
TA2-12575
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXX); Refugee Protection Officer: L. Sokoloff; Respondent: Minister (Government of Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Final Decision Following Hearing (march 12, 2003; Decision April 16, 2003)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Generalized Risk, Nexus, Compelling Reasons, Torture, Removal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk Nexus Compelling Reasons +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

L. Sokoloff

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister (Government of Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Final Decision Following Hearing (march 12, 2003; Decision April 16, 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA (risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is individualized or a generalized risk of terrorism

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant's risk stems from a generalized threat of terrorism shared by the population at large and not from persecution for a Convention ground, and because the United States retains effective control and protective measures so that removal would not subject the claimant individually to a risk to life or torture, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA; September 11, 2001 does not constitute a change in circumstances warranting protection here.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claimant is not a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 of the IRPA and is not a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97 of the IRPA.